RELIGIOUS DEFECT 


OF THE 

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.* 


BY E. R. CRAVEN, D.D. 
11 


The subject proposed for consideration is, certainly, one of the most 
important that can engage the attention of Americans. It is with great 
hesitation, however, that the writer enters upon its discussion. He reveres 
the memory of the Fathers of the Republic for their moral excellence, 
their exalted wisdom, their self-sacrificing patriotism, and many of them 
for their true piety; and he esteems the Constitution they framed as one 
of the noblest products of human skill. It was with great difficulty he 
could bring himself to believe that there is an important defect in their 
great work, and it is with still greater difficulty that he now presumes to 
point out to others what he regards as the error. This he would scarce 
dare to do, had not many of the best and wisest of his countrymen preceded 
him in calling attention to the same defect. 

In this tract the effort will be made to show:— -first, that our National 
Constitution should contain a recognition of the Sovereignty of God over 
the Nation; and, secondly, that it is defective in this respect. Let it be 
observed that, by these propositions, it is not affirmed that those who 
framed the Constitution were irreligious, nor that the people who adopted 
it were not a Christian people. Truly pious men may sometimes fall into 
error. 

I. THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD CONTAIN A RECOGNITION OF THE 
SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD OVER THE NATION. 

In the consideration of this topic three things will be assumed, as 
their establishment (in substance) belongs to another tract of this series^ 
viz,—(1) That every nation is an organism, a moral person, of which Je- 


* Reprinted from The Christian Statesman of March 2d, 18G8. 

.. C»y i ; 













hovahis Creator and Sovereign;—(2) That Cod, as Sovereign, gives a 
Nation its prosperity and its adversity, and that He gives these for pur¬ 
poses of reward, of chastisement, and of Bpeeial training;—(3) That it is 
the duty of every Nation—especially of every Nation blessed as we have 
been—to recognize, as an organism , His Sovereignty. 

On the platform of these assumptions the position is taken that the 
Federal Constitution should contain such a recognition, and for the fol¬ 
lowing reasons:—- 

1st. Only therein, or in another instrument framed as it was and 
therefore of equal dignity with it, can such a recognition be made. Not 
only is the Constitution the highest utterance of the Nation; but, in an 
important sense, it, and national acts performed under its authority, are 
the only organic utterances of the people—the only utterances of the Na¬ 
tion as a Nation. 

2nd. In view of the objects professedly contemplated in its formation, 
a failure to recognize the Divine Sovereignty therein, is, in effect, to deny 
it. The Constitution is the solemn, well considered declaration of the Na¬ 
tion before the world, not only as to the form of government established, 
but also as to the ends contemplated in its establishment. The Preamble, 
which sets forth those ends, is as follows :-—“We, the people of the United 
States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure do¬ 
mestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of Ameri¬ 
ca.” Manifestly, the ends contemplated are the very blessings the be- 
stowment of which God claims as His own prerogative. For a Nation 
enlightened by His Word, and peculiarly favored by HH Providence, to 
adopt a Constitution professedly to secure these blessings, without embo¬ 
dying therein a recognition of His Sovereignty and an expression of de¬ 
pendence on Him, is, in effect, to deny that Sovereignty and to claim for 
itself His prerogative. 

Nor can such a defect in the Fundamental Instrument be supple¬ 
mented by any means short of a correction of the Instrument itself. A 
congregation of the whole people, or of a majority thereof, for prayer or 
praise, in compliance with a presidential or congressional recommendation, 
would be, it is acknowledged, in a sense , a National act; but still, not be¬ 
ing provided for in the Constitution, it would not be an organic act-—it 
would not reach the dignity and importance of a constitutional declara¬ 
tion. Notwithstanding such an act, the formal organic utterance of the 
Nation in the Constitution (an utterance ignoring the Divine Sovereignty) 
would still remain before the world as the Nation’s declaration of its posi¬ 
tion as a Nation in reference to God. 

J Air'.t Pi* 












3 


II. NO RECOGNITION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN THE CONSTITU¬ 
TION. 

That there is no recognition of the Divine Sovereignty in our Fun¬ 
damental Instrument would seem to be evident from bare inspection. The 
name of God does not once appear therein. It is contended, however, on 
three distinct grounds, that His Sovereignty is therein implied. These 
grounds will now be stated and examined:— 

1st. It is so contended because an oath (which, in its proper sense, 
is an appeal to the Divine Being) is required therein as a qualification to 
office. In answer it may be said, 

(1) The conclusion would not follow, though an oath, in the proper 
sense of the term , were required. A voluntary association, professedly re¬ 
cognizing the Sovereignty of God only over the individuals who compose 
it, may legitimately require of any one whom it entrusts with important 
interests an affirmation in the name of G-od that he will faithfully execute 
his trust. 

(2) But an oath, in the proper sense of the term , is not required by 
the Constitution. The form of oath prescribed for administration to a 
President elect, (which is the model of all oaths administered under the 
Constitution,) is lacking in any expressed appeal to God;—it is as follows, • 
“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office 
of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, pre¬ 
serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States/ 7 And 
not only is the model oath thus lacking; but, in Art. VI. Sec. III., imme¬ 
diately after the requirement that all officers “shall be bound by oath or 
affirmation to support the Constitution/ 7 occurs the proviso—“ but no re¬ 
ligious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public 
trust under the United States. 77 By this proviso the constitutional oath 
is degraded from the high and sacred position of an appeal to God to the 
low platform of a solemn promise. In view of it, an atheist, even as he is 
about to take the oath prescribed for the President elect, may publicly de¬ 
clare his disbelief in the existence of the Divine Being, and no human au¬ 
thority can stay his inauguration.* 


* The writer of this tract is most decidedly of opinion that the proviso is proper in so 
far as it forbids the requirement of the adoption of any particular creed, or of participation 
in any specific religious rite, as a qualification to office. He thinks, however, that, in its pre¬ 
sent form, it is too general—that it should be so limited as not to forbid the requirement of 
an appeal to God in the administration of an oath. He is also of opinion that the form of 
the Presidential oath should be so amended as to embody a direct appeal to the Supreme 
Being. Of course the Constitution, in its present form, does not forbid that any man in 
taking an oath should make an appeal to God, if he chooses so to do —it does, however, 
most emphatically forbid that he should be required to make such an appeal. 



4 


2d. That the Constitution impliedly recognizes the Sovereignty of 
God, is again argued from the fact that, in Art. I. Sec. VII., it is provided, 
“If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sun¬ 
days excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be 
a law, &c. ,, It is contended that the recognition of Sunday as a day re¬ 
tired from business implies a recognition of the authority of the Divine 
Lawgiver. 

(1) Even upon the supposition that the proviso contemplates the di¬ 
vinely imposed obligation of the Sabbath, it would not necessarily imply a 
recognition of the Divine Sovereignty over the Nation. A strictly volun¬ 
tary association, if it act3 wisely, will make provision not to interfere with 
the personal obligations of its members. 

(2) The proviso, however, does not necessarily imply a recognition of 
the divinely imposed obligation of the Sabbath. It is, indeed, consistent 
with such a recognition; but, since the observance of regularly recurring 
rest days may be defended on merely human considerations, it is equally 
consistent with the idea of a merely human origination of the custom of 
observing such days. The enactment of a law against murder does not 
necessarily imply a recognition of the authority of Him who ordained— 
Thou shalt not kill. And so, a body of legislators may, without any in¬ 
tended reference to God, on merely human considerations, legalize the ob¬ 
servance of a rest day. An objector, however, may query—Why fix upon 
one day in seven , and that, the first day of the week ? The answer is pa¬ 
tent. A body of wise legislators finding such an arrangement prevalent in 
the community, and perceiving that it is as good as any other, would 
naturally adopt it. Manifestly the proviso does not necessarily imply a 
recognition of the Divine Sovereignty. 

3d. It is also contended that the (so-called) concluding clause of the 
Constitution does most distinctly recognize the Sovereignty of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. The clause is in these words—“Done in Convention, by 
the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of Sep¬ 
tember in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty- 
seven, &c.” 

(1.) This clause forms no part of the Constitution as adopted by the 
people. It is merely an attesting clause, appended to the Instrument by 
the Convention that framed it and recommended it to the people for their 
adoption. 

(2.) The words u in the year of our Lordf form no part of the clause 
as adopted by the Convention. They were inserted probably by the 
Clerk. The clause as adopted was in this abbreviated form: “Done in 
Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the 17tli of 
September, &c. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our 


5 



names.” See Elliot's Debates , Vol. 1, jp. 317, {Madison's Minutes ); also, 
Vol. 5, p. 555, ( Madison's Debates'). 

So far from tlie reasons alleged showing that the Sovereignty of God 
is implied in our Fundamental Instrument, a careful examination of them 
serves to make manifest that there is not an implied reference therein, 
even to His existence. 

As proving that there was no designed exclusion of the name of 
God from the Constitution, and, indeed, that the Divine Sovereignty was 
fully recognized by the Federal Convention, allusion has been made to the. 
alleged fact that the sessions of that body were opened with prayer. That 
such was the fact has been frequently stated and is generally believed. 
The evidence to the contrary, however, is clear and decisive. The facts 
as set forth in the Madison Papers ^Elliot's Debates , Vol. 5 , pages 253- 
255), are as follows:—On the 28th of June, Benjamin Franklin, after 
one of his most able addresses, made a motion that the sessions of the 
Convention should be opened with prayer; this motion was seconded by 
Roger Sherman, but was opposed by several distinguished gentlemen; 
the final disposition of the subject is presented in the following words of 
Madison’s record:—“After several unsuccessful attempts for silently post- * 
poning the matter by adjourning, the adjournment was carried without 
any vote on the motion.” The speech of&Franklin, which was in manu¬ 
script, is preserved amongst his papers, bearing this note by himself,— 
“The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unneces¬ 
sary !” The speech, together with the accompanying note, as they appear 
in the Works of Franklin by Sparks, Vol. 5, p. 155, are printed as an 
appendix to this paper.* 

As against the conclusion that there is an important religious defect 
in our Fundamental Instrument, is alleged our continued prosperity 
under it. God, it is argued, would not permit the prolonged prosperity 
of a Government based upon an instrument in which Ilis Sovereignty was 
sinfully ignored. The argument takes for granted that God will always 
punish immediately. On the contrary,—He may permit a nation that 

* In a recent valuable work on “ The Christian life and character of the civil insti¬ 
tutions of the United States, by B. F. Morris,” the assertion is made that the motion of 
Franklin was almost unanimously adopted. The author quotes a passage, generally 
believed to be authentic, from a work published in 1825, entitled, “ Religious opinions 
and character of Washington,” in which a most glowing description is given of Franklin’s 
speech,—its effect upon Washington and the Convention,—the adoption of tho motion 
with only one dissenting voice, &c. It is not intended to assert that Mr. Morris inten¬ 
tionally misrepresented the facts, nor is this believed. It is manifest, however, that the 
anonymous statement republished by him from the work of McGuire is utterly inconsistent 
with the facts as presented by Madison, and by Franklin himself.- 



6 


ignores His authority to go on to the highest pitch of prosperity and 
power, that He may make manifest His Sovereignty in its humiliation. 
He permitted the tower of Babel to reach a mountain height before He 
confounded the language of the builders. And from this point of view 
the following sentence in the accompanying speech of Dr. Franklin 
assumes portentous proportions:—“ I believe that without His concurring 
aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders 
of Babel; we shall become divided by our little, partial, local interests, 
our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach 
and a by-word down to future ages.” May not our Constitution, con¬ 
fessedly one of the master-pieces of human workmanship—framed (alas! 
without reference to God) a to form a more perfect union , and secure 
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity ,” or, in other words, 
built, as was Babel, u lest we should be scattered abroadf —may it not 
prove another Babel which shall serve to make manifest that Jehovah is 
jealous for His honor? It is a fearfully significant fact that the troubles 
from which God has recently delivered us arose from confusion of lan¬ 
guage in regard to the very Constitution which was the tower of our 
hope, and the troubles which now threaten us arise from a similar con¬ 
fusion. May it not be that in our past deliverance He manifested His 
forbearing mercy by giving us opportunity to repent,—an opportunity 
which, if not improved, will be followed by an utter destruction not only 
of the government based upon the Constitution, but of the Constitution 
itself? 

No thoughtful observer can entertain doubt as to the glorious future of 
this people. It may be, however, that for that glory we are to be pre¬ 
pared by national chastisements bitter and severe, scourging us to the 
recognition of Jehovah as our King. If, indeed, our fathers erred in not 
according unto Him the honor due, let us not wait for further chastise¬ 
ment, but perform our duty now. Let us inscribe His name upon our 
banner, that we may be that happy people whose acknowledged God is 
the Lord. 

SPEECH OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ON HIS MOTION FOR PRAYERS IN 
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. President :—The small progress we have made, after four or five 
weeks’ close attendance and continual reasonings with each other, our 
different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing 
as many noes as ayes ) is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection 
of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of 
political wisdom, since we have been running all about in search of it. 
We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and 
examined the different forms of those republics, which, having been 


7 


originally formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer 
exist; and we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none 
of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances. 

In this situation of this Assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to 
find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to 
us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of 
humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understandings? 
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of 
danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our 
prayers, sir, were heard;—and they were graciously answered. All of 
us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent 
instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind 
Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the 
means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now 
forgotten that powerful friend ?—or, do we imagine we no longer need its 
(His) assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, 
the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the 
affairs of men. And, if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his 
notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid ? We have 
been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build 
the house, they labor in vain that build ft.” I firmly believe this; and I 
also believe, that, without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this 
political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall become 
divided by our little, partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded, 
and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a by-word down to future 
ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate 
instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom, and leave 
it to chance, war, and conquest. 

I therefore beg leave to move, 

That henceforth, prayers, imploring the assistance of Heaven, and 
its blessing on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning, 
before we proceed to business; and that one or more of the clergy of this 
city be requested to officiate in that service. 

Note by Dr. Franklin .—“ The Convention except three or four 
persons, thought prayers unnecessary!” Sparks’ Works of Benjamin 
Franklin, Vol. 5, p. 155. 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 012 052 376 



THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION whose object is to secure a recognition of 
Almighty - God and the Christian Religion in the Constitution of the United States, 
ask for the substance of the following amendment: 

We, the people of the United States, [acknowledging Almighty God as the 
source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as 
the Ruler among the nations, and liis Jlevcaled Will as of supreme authority, 
in order to constitute a Christian government ,] form a more perfect union, 
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, 
and promote the general welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for 
the United States of America. 

No one is committed to any precise words of amendment. The above is 
intended only to suggest the substance of what should be enacted. 


©ffim-S of ttu gnwriatiun. 


PRESIDENT, 

Hon. WILLIAM STRONG, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 


VICE I RESIDENTS, 


JOIIN ALEXANDER, Esq., 

Hon. JAMES POLLOCK, 

Hon. CIIAUNCEY M. OLDS, 

Rev. J. H. McILVAINE, D.D., 

Rt. Rev. L. SCOTT, Bishop of M. E. Church, 
Rev. J. T. PRESSLY, D.D., 


Rev. JONATHAN EDWARDS. D D., Prest. of 
Washington and Jefferson College, 

Gen. 0. 0. HOWARD, 

Rev. J, BLANCHARD, Prest. of Wheaton 
College. 

Rev. J. H. A. BOMBERGER, D.D. 


Recording Secretary, Corresponding Secretary, , Treasurer, 

Rev. W. W. BARR, Rev. T. P. STEVENSON, SAMUEL AGNEW, Esq., 

1329 Vine Street, Philadelphia, 1126 Arch Street, Philadelphia. 


T II E 

Christian STA.TESMA.isr, 

A SEMI-MONTHLY JOURNAL, 

DEVOTED TO THE CAUSE OF 

PUBLIC MORALS AND NATIONAL RELIGION. 


The design of this sheet, as its name suggests, is the discussion of the principles of government 
in the light of Christianity. It will maintain the following fundamental positions : 

Civil Society is a Divine Institution—Nations arc moral persons and are bound by 
the moral law—The Lord Jesus Christ is the Ruler among the Nations, and should be 
recognized as such—The Holy Scriptures, as a revelation of His will, are the supremo 
law of Nations—Civil office cannot be righteously or safely given to immoral and 
wicked men. 

Discussions of the above And kindred topics will bo obtained constantly from the best sources. 

Among the regular contributors to this paper, are the following representative men in various 
denominations. 

Prof. TAYLEIt LEWIS, Union College. 

Prof. J. II. SEELYE, Amlierst College. 

JRev. I>r. MeiLVAIXE, College of New Jersey. 

Prest. J. EDWA11DS, D.D., Jefferson and Washington College. 

Rev. GEORGE JUNKXN, I ).!>., Lafayette College. 

Rev. J. R. W. SLOANE. N. Y. 

Rev. G. C. VINCENT, D.D,, Westminster College. 

Rev. J. T. COOPER, D.D., Philadelphia. 

Rev. 8. O. WYLIE, Philadelphia- 

PRICE $1.00 A. YEAR. Address, 

THE CHRISTIAN STATESMAN, 

1320 Tine Street, Phllada. 























